Why Men Cannot Trust Feminist Academics who Write on Men

I read with interest (and quite frankly, disgust) an interview with Michael Kimmel, author of books such as “Guyland” and “Angry White Men” over at Just Four Guys blog. It made me realize why men should not trust Uncle Tim’s like Kimmel. Here is a summary of where academics like Kimmel stand:

PROF. KIMMEL: The United States has never been more gender equal. We’ve never been more sexually equal. We’ve never been more racially equal. Sure, on each front, we have a long way to go for full equality. There is still lots of discrimination against women, LGBT people, and people of color. But we have never been more equal. And we will be more equal tomorrow than we are today. And I’m happy to report that we are not going to go forward into the past. Women are not going to have some V8 moment in which they say “Oh, yeah, this equality stuff sucks, I hate voting, and driving, and serving on juries, and having a job, and having my own bank account, and having orgasms.” Let’s go back the way it used to be on Mad Men.

So the question for men, in my view, is simple: we can be dragged kicking and screaming into that more equal future, or we can walk courageously into that future, knowing that our lives, as men, will, be better for it, that the more equal we are, the better our relationships with our friends, our wives and partners, our children will be. Gender equality is not a zero-sum game; it’s a win-win. I support gender equality not only because it’s right and fair and just and patriotically American – which it is – but because I also know it is in my interests to do so.

No, Kimmel, men have real issues right now that you have not addressed. Campuses accusing them unfairly of rape without due process, fathers being torn from kids due to abusive family courts, men forced to pay for children that are not their own and boys growing up without male role models. You talk about how teens like Trayvon Martin etc. need our help from the Men’s rights movement. Bullshit. Men like Chris Mackney need and deserve our help. I will be there to help them, will you? Somehow, I doubt it.

Maybe in retirement I'll take my old white male self down to the local junior college and enroll in one of the women's studies courses, just to annoy people. I'll ask all sorts of non-PC questions and have the profs ready to kill me almost immediately. It'll be fun, now that I don't care about the grade.

Bad news: There's a growing number of what could be called men's studies classes being taught in universities. They often go by names such as Psychology of Masculinity or Sociology of the Male because almost no universities have Men's Studies in their catalogs despite the ubiquity of university Women's Studies programs. (Academic programs are exempt from Title IX.) These men's studies classes are typically taught by Michael Kimmel feminist types and use his texts or worse.

As one of my colleagues said to her feminism class the day I happened to sit in on it, "You can tell who make up the superior social class in any society. They're the people you're not allowed to criticize."

"We're almost there, but not quite" and he ignores all the damage his side is doing, all the issues his side marginalizes, and all the harmful attitudes it reinforces - all because of a resolute faith in progress that justifies its own ends towards its utopian ideal.

I'm getting more and more offended by the lumping together of all white men as being the oppressors of all others. This is racial and gender bigotry that is extremely harmful to many individuals who \are being classified as villains based entirely on their gender and skin color.

What he is supporting isn't gender equality, but a supremacist deference to female sensibilities and desires over those of men and the resultant codification of that into law.

If he were truly a supporter of mens equality, he wouldn't be so cavalier at the courts being 25 years behind the times as far as mens rights go.

He would never, EVER be so cavalier about the courts being 25 years behind the times if it were women or skin color minorities as the victims of unjust laws. That he is about men outs his feminist stance posing as support for men as the PC BS that it is.

Equal rights for women was the suffragette movement of the early 1900s. Those women had a legitimate argument and won the debate. They got legislation passed that gave women the right to vote, equal access to education and employment, equal pay for equal work, which in a civilized society women should have. They accomplished their goal, and the issues they addressed were resolved a century ago.

What the suffragettes didn't do was denigrate, harrass and abuse men, nor did they discriminate against men. They simply wanted equal rights, and they got them. They did not support abortion on demand, no fault divorce or govenernment subsidized birth control. They respected men, marriage and motherhood.

Feminism didn't come along until the early 1970s, but it never had anything to do with equality between the sexes. Women already had equal rights, thanks to the suffragettes.

No, feminism was a splinter group of the 60s radicals. In the 50s, the US communist party published a ten-point bulletin for their plan to take over America. I read it on Front Page Magazine years ago. (David Horowitz knows the left better than anybody.) I was a simple plan, really--disrupt the nuclear family, disenfranchise men, take over the schools and the media, etc. The radicals in the 60s used it as a blueprint for their protests.

Problem was the male radicals were horribly sexist. They basically thought of women as only good for sex, cooking and cleaning. The female radicals broke off and formed their own movement, feminism, but they followed the same plan. They took their outrage at male radicals and applied it to all males. Hence, feminism became misandry, and in a perverse way misogeny, but at its core it is misanthropy.

Look, Susan B. Anthony was a suffragette. She argued for equal rights. Margaret Sanger was a eugenist and a racist. She argued for abortion and sterilization, because she wanted to eleminate minorities. Guess which one's portrait is hanging on the wall of the office of NOW in downtown DC.

This is how perverse feminism has become. Susan B. Anthony is forgotten, even though she did more than any suffragette to grant women equal rights. Margaret Sanger is heralded as a heroine, because she argued for abortion.

And now we got this girl, Sandra Fluke, rhymes with . . . The suffragettes would have shunned her. The feminists embrace her as an icon.

Feminism has nothing to do with equal rights. It has to do with hatred of men. Disruption of the nuclear family--marriage is a prison, a husband is a tyrants, all sex is rape, pregnancy is a disease, a fetus is a prasite, a child is a burden--and all for what, the liberation of women? The suffragettes achieved equal rights for women a hundred years ago, but they, unlike feminists, held women responsible for their decisions and behavior.

And now we got this fool claiming to support men's rights while making the feminists' argument for them. It's ridiculous and pathetic.

What is his position on presumptive paternity? You know, the doctrine that requires married men to pay child support for children they did not conceive. What is his position on abortion on demand? What is his position on no fault divorce? You know, when a woman can change her mind at any time, for any reason, or no reason, and take half of everything, including the house and the bastard children. What is his position on the abuses of the "family" court system driving men into bankruptcy and worse to suicide?

This fool is not an advocate for men's rights. He's a tool for the feminist movement. He's a useful idiot, and nothing could be more apparent than that.

"Equal rights for women was the suffragette movement of the early 1900s."--GawainsGhost

False. Early 20th century suffragettes were sharply opposed to equal rights for women. They were hot for the privilege of voting but quite cold on taking on the more unpleasant obligations of citizenship required of men. You will notice that the suffragette movement in the US had no traction for decades after the Civil War despite the passage of the 13th Amendment that extended the franchise to blacks. A whole generation of women who lived through that war or grew up knowing men with missing limbs, were blinded, or died young after years of painful disability had to die off before the idea of women having the privilege of voting began to seem reasonable to women.

Also notice that after legislators of the states foolishly ratified the 19th Amendment, women crushed the Equal Rights Amendment by strongly opposing it when it was first introduced in Congress in 1923. Another generation of women would have to die off before a politically significant percentage of them could be duped into believing that 'equal' doesn't really mean 'equal' (remember the insistence of 1970s feminists that the ERA wouldn't require females to register for the draft?).

Don't be fooled. The suffragettes never wanted equal rights. They demanded extra privileges--something female supremacists (i.e., feminists) still do today.

Thank you for saying this. Feminism is all about getting the perceived best for women at the expense of everyone else. It was a lie from the beginning and it is a lie today.

What is considered derogatory by the feminist mind was once thought noble and rewarding. What is called equal choice is really just special privileges for women with out the responsibilities that used to accompany such treatment.

My take from the writings of academics is that misogyny has two definitions:1) Anything a feminist finds offensive.2) Anything a woman finds offensive (except when contradicting definition number one).

Sure is, pal. Try asking the guys who participate in wrestling, gymnastics and swimming how that "win-win" Title IX stuff is working out for them (assuming you can find any...universities have made them very hard to find these days). I'd say that's a clear zero-sum example right there.